Author- Vaishnavi Shukla, CITY Law College

KEYWORDS: 

Custodial Violence

Human Rights Violations

Fundamental Rights

Article 21 (Right to Life)

Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention)

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Torture

Police Accountability

Legal Reforms

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

• Custodial violence encompasses a broad range of brutality inflicted by police or judicial forces while an individual is in their custody, including torture, death, and sexual assault. Custodial violence, based on the force and area of cruelty, can be both physical and psychological, and as well it has been the cause of death of persons in custody.
• The criminal justice system relies on the assumption that is observed and followed. Unfortunately, this is not the reality, at the stage of arrest and in the absence of an FIR or formal complaint, the process is envisaged with the final verdict and becomes a painful and humiliating experience. A lot of people subsequently exonerated at trial in cases of not guilty have already been subjected to excessive physical and psychological abuse and trauma. Despite the end of the case, the traumatic experiences of being abused and kept under house arrest perpetrated towards them throughout their lives will ensure that they will be unable to live in tranquillity.
• It is an immense guilt in a supposedly civilized society, that the heads of its governing powers should resort to violence. Before the DK Basu case, there was no clear mechanism to fine guilty police officers who maltreated people in police custody in India. While a victim of custodial violence was sometimes compensated, it was a grey area as to when to compensate them.

FACTS OF THE CASE

DK Basu, Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non-political organization, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court of India on 26/08/1986, drawing attention to certain news published in the Telegraph Newspaper regarding deaths in police custody. He requested that the letter be treated as a Writ Petition under “Public Interest Litigation.” Given the significance of the issues raised, the letter was accepted as a written Petition, and the Defendants were notified. While the writ petition was under consideration, Mr. Ashok Kumar Johri sent a letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding the death of Mahesh Bihari from Pilkhana, Aligarh, while in police custody. This letter was also treated as a Request for Writing and was included with D.K. Basu’s Request for Writing. On 14/08/1987, the Court issued an Order sending notices to all state governments and also requested the Law Commission to provide appropriate suggestions within two months. In response, several states submitted affidavits, including West Bengal, Orissa, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Maharashtra, and Manipur. Additionally, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Principal Counsel, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. All the attorneys who appeared provided valuable assistance to the Court.

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• There needs to be a complete halt to the overexerted physical force used by officers on their detainees, and the means through which these confessions are acquired must change. Any misses of abuse of power must be as little as possible. Involuntary and voluntary violence, such as rape and beating, cause deep-rooted psychological damage that is inconceivable, and that is something that requires a much more significant solution than what the law offers. Such actions result in the abuse of the violence that is allowed towards police authorities.
• In custody, violence needs to be limited, and there is a justification as to why guidelines are necessary, and the petitioners argued on the scope of human rights, which violence breaches. Article 21 of the Constitution of India speaks about life and personal liberty, and those rights need to be protected. Every citizen, including those who are arrested and imprisoned, has the fundamental right to life. Additionally, it was asserted that all persons, whether apprehended, arrested or detained, are entitled to certain rights, and the state must safeguard these rights. A state that ignores such an obligation must be answerabletor the unlawful conduct of police officials as a matter of principle.
• The petitioner shed light on the horrendous conditions of mistreatment that are within the jurisdiction of the prison.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• Counsel for different states claimed that the matters in dispute were already settled within their boundaries. The state’s position was that there was no duty to provide legal counsel during the arrest of a person. They said that measures were being taken to solve the problem of violence in custody. The dialogue encompassed the roles of police officers in incidences of violence in custody, and the state claimed that there were some steps taken against the officers who misused their powers.
• On the other hand, the parties contended that some of these custodial steps were standard operating procedures for law enforcement and for avoiding the commission of crimes. They contended that the law should not impose any bounds on police powers as those are necessary for law enforcement. It was also alleged that the actions of officers should be treated as valid unless shown to the contrary.
• The respondents advanced several arguments about the law enforcement issues such as lack of proper training, inadequate resources, and the need to close cases quickly as some of the obstacles to effective law enforcement. They tried to justify their conduct and practices in custody by emphasizing the law enforcement objectives that justify the use of such tactics.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISION

The decision in question referred to various provisions which sought to safeguard the life of an individual, particularly Articles 21 (Right to Life) and 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention) of the Indian Constitution. It also examined particular aspects of the law stated under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), such as Sections 41 (authority to arrest), 46 (method of arrest), and 176 (inquiry of death during custody).

JUDGEMENT

The judgement of this bench consisting of Justice A.S. Anand and Justice Kuldip Singh had two broad parts: the first one dealt with the provisions which seek to safeguard the police action, and the second one with setting up a system of compensation for victims of police excesses or misconduct. The ruling reaffirmed the commitment towards the prevention of torture and ill-treatment of persons. Further, it reaffirmed that arrested persons are entitled to basic rights, with reasonable restrictions on the exercise of those rights permitted by law. Many of the important measures that were formulated focused on the do’s and don’ts of police officers concerning making arrests.

RATIO DECIDENDI

• Acts of violence or death under custody include rape and torture, worsening the allegation of violence during police custody. Such acts violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India along with basic human rights. Paragraph 22 Clause 1 states that any person arrested must be apprised of the reasons for their arrest. Along with that, they have the freedom to appoint a legal practitioner of their own choice.
• Such actions are against the basic human rights as stipulated in clause 1 of Article 22. This is regarding the Constitution of India which emphasizes the humane treatment of an accused during interrogation. It has been accepted that in addition to the necessity of protecting an accused’s dignity, interrogation for which ‘third-degree’ tactics will not be permitted is also essential.
• There is a need for clearly defined limits and responsibilities to be set for the police from the misuse of their power during the arrest of an individual.
• The state is liable for the actions of public servants in instances of custodial violence as outlined in the deed of vicarious liability.
• The police do not have the power of arrest without provocation, in which case the rights and obligations of arrested people must be respected without any undue influence.
• A police officer should be made aware of how to properly and professionally arrest while treating the suspect respectfully and professionally as the officer performs their duties.

GUIDELINES 

• A police officer making an arrest should wear proper name tags and designations for easy identification. The details of the officers conducting the interrogation must be logged in a register.
• An arrest memo needs to be created by the officer executing the arrest, and it should be signed by at least one witness, which could be a family member or a respected individual from the community where the arrest took place.
• The arrested individual has the right to notify a close friend or relative about their arrest as soon as possible.
• All relevant details regarding the arrest, such as the time, location, and custody venue, must be communicated by the police. If the next friend or relative lives outside the district or town, they should be informed within 8 to 12 hours after the arrest through the local legal aid organization and the police station in that area via telegram.
• A record must be made in the detention diary about the arrest, including the details of the friend or relative who has been informed. The police officers responsible for the custody of the arrestee should also be noted.
• Upon request, an examination of the arrestee can be conducted, and any significant or minor injuries on their body must be documented. The inspection memo should be signed by both the arrestee and the arresting officer, and a copy must be given to the arrestee.
• A medical examination should be carried out within 48 hours of detention by a qualified doctor. This examination can also be conducted by a doctor designated by the Director of Health Services of the relevant state.
• The arrestee may be allowed to meet with their lawyer during the interrogation, but not throughout the entire process.

OBITER DICTA 

“The ruling included comments about the broader impact of custodial violence on society and governance, emphasizing that such misconduct erodes public trust in law enforcement and the judicial system.”

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The implementation of these guidelines has helped to some extent in controlling third-degree torture by officers. This ruling clarified that non-compliance with the guidelines not only makes the concerned official subject to departmental action but also exposes them to contempt of court, with proceedings for contempt able to be initiated in any High Court with jurisdiction over the matter.

While we have seen a decrease in custodial deaths and violence, the issue has not been completely resolved, as some guidelines remain largely theoretical. There have been instances where police have tortured detainees to assert their authority. Notable Bollywood films like “Gangajal” and “Jai Bhim” have highlighted the issues of police brutality and custodial deaths. Police officers in rural areas must receive better training on these guidelines. Residents in these areas often lack awareness of their rights, which allows officers to exploit their authority. Illiteracy continues to be a significant challenge for society. Additionally, detainees must also be informed about their rights during detention. A better understanding of individual rights and the effective implementation of the guidelines established in DK Basu would certainly aid in addressing this issue.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

The ruling cited international treaties prohibiting torture, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, alongside national cases that highlight the necessity for reform in law enforcement practices. 

Important Statutes Referred

The principal statutes referenced in the ruling comprise: 

• The Indian Constitution (Articles 21 and 22).
• The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Sections 41, 46, 50, 56, among others).